ScottSA wrote: we need to sit down, take a hard unbiased look at the cost vs benefit, present our conclusions to the people of British Columbia, and only then act

The Liberal government under Gordon Campbell effectively signed away BC's right to have an Environmental Assessment.Christy Clark has not taken steps that would allow BC to back out of that agreement .

The environmental Assessment Act would provide for the thorough, timely and integrated assessment of the potential environmental, economic, social, heritage and health effects that may occur during the lifecycle of these projects, and provides for meaningful participation by First Nations, proponents, the public, local governments, and federal and provincial agencies."

I don't feel BC's best interests are being looked after.Espectially when the Federal government supports this project and has changed the rules to weaken environmental protection in favour of large oil companies. Will your government back out of this agreement with the National Energy Board ,and have a BC assessment done ?

My party hasn't put forth a position on this yet, and until I can look into it in more depth I won't set my opinion in stone either. Not because of what my party's future position may be - fortunately I won't have to toe the party line, since the BC Conservatives have made it explicit in our policy that MLAs support the clearly defined will of our constituents over the party line - but because I don't feel comfortable staking my flag yet.

I will say this, however: The federal government would argue that they have simply eliminated redundancies like having two separate studies done of the same thing. "Streamlining," they call it. To the extent that this makes it easier for the oil companies, it makes it easier for everyone in business. That's a good thing.

The question then becomes - has anything been lost in this process? Is there something that a BC assessment would find that a federal one didn't? Is the cost/benefit such that we would benefit from having another analysis done? If the answer is "yes" just because we don't like the conclusion it arrived at, then I'm certainly not for doing it all over again. If, on the other hand, there are holes in it that I don't know about, I'm more than willing to look at the question.

It seems at first blush at least that a great deal of money has been spent on the federal assessment, and that it is fairly comprehensive, and that it has gone to some lengths to investigate the environmental impact. Are there specific holes in the analysis that you know about? Keep in mind of course that there is and always will be some level of risk associated with it and that no one is claiming otherwise.

Would you agree that setting aside an Enbridge-funded trust account sufficient to cover a significant disaster on land or at sea is a viable idea?

ScottSA wrote:Would you agree that setting aside an Enbridge-funded trust account sufficient to cover a significant disaster on land or at sea is a viable idea?

IMO this pipeline should not be built.The risks out weigh any benefits.It looks like this article http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri ... le4622618/ shows your party is comfortable and willing to go by the Federal environment process. I don't have much faith in the Federal assessment process currently underway.The Harper government has publicly endorsed the building of this pipeline and has gutted environmental protection laws to ensure his agenda goes forward regardless of the risks to the environment.They don't have the best interests of BC in mind, but are driven by their own agenda . BC is what is important to me,it is our back yard that we live in . I grew up in Kitimat and know all about the Douglas channel and the surrounding environment.It is not if a spill happens ,with Enbridges track record, it is when a spill happens and any spill in that environment is unacceptable,for what is at risk. But to answer your question If and a big if Harper and big oil gets their way, then yes, at the least The government should be ensuring ,that an Enbridge funded trust be established to cover any and all clean up,and pay for all effects to our fishing industry ,before any Canadian government money is to be spent.And I might add to that, that all clean up be done by BC ,controlled and inspected by the BC government and done by local BC residents.Not left in the control of Enbridge.

“If I were to remain silent, I’d be guilty of complicity.”― Albert Einstein__________________________Christy Clark needs to be deleted from the Premiers office.

It really is too bad that the BC Conservative party have failed so badly in re-inventing themselves from a policy perspective, or even in attracting a comprehensive list of candidates and leaders who are anything but backwater unknowns, no-names and political misfits. No vialble alternative for a BC government there that makes sense IMO. Most wouldn't even qualify as a decernt backbencher in the existing Liberal/Socred coalition government, let alone as a Minister or Premier.

From my perspective and I'm not a Conservative supporter,weather one agrees with them or not I feel there has been a purposely trashing of the party over the last few weeks by the media and others.All negative reporting to tear down and discredit .Then all over the news the last few days is uplifting and positive coverage of a Penticton Liberal candidate race to choose that riding candidate .I haven't heard one peep out of the media ,about the Conservatives selecting this Scott S above,as the Conservative riding candidate.It's all negative about them.Perhaps Nab the Conservatives appear to be all unknowns ,misfits and no-names because the Liberal biased media keeps it that way.Just a thought.

“If I were to remain silent, I’d be guilty of complicity.”― Albert Einstein__________________________Christy Clark needs to be deleted from the Premiers office.

That trashing of the BC Conservative party or those on the fringes of it goes back years/decades Maple, not just a few weeks. Heck, just in these threads you can find many examples, produced mainly I would think by many of those in the Liberal Coalition who have not forgotten the reasons behind the final meltdown of the right wing Socreds through the eighties, - and still harbour ill will toward those who helped it along, or anyone like them. Remember, "keeping the socialist hordes behind the gates of hell" is still the key watch-phrase of the BC Right Wing - ...as instrumental today under Christy Clark Libs as it was 40 years ago under the Bennett Socreds, and the BC Conservatives under whatever label.

maple leaf wrote:From my perspective and I'm not a Conservative supporter,weather one agrees with them or not I feel there has been a purposely trashing of the party over the last few weeks by the media and others.All negative reporting to tear down and discredit .Then all over the news the last few days is uplifting and positive coverage of a Penticton Liberal candidate race to choose that riding candidate .I haven't heard one peep out of the media ,about the Conservatives selecting this Scott S above,as the Conservative riding candidate.It's all negative about them.Perhaps Nab the Conservatives appear to be all unknowns ,misfits and no-names because the Liberal biased media keeps it that way.Just a thought.

Perhaps it is due to the party truly being a bunch of misfits and BC Liberal hoping to re-brand. Maybe I don't give the people of BC enough credit and maybe, just maybe, they see this as the 3rd coming of the Social Credit party?

Man can now fly in the air like a bird, swim under the ocean like a fish, he can burrow into the ground like a mole. Now if only he could walk the earth like a man, this would be paradise.Tommy Douglas

maple leaf wrote:From my perspective and I'm not a Conservative supporter,weather one agrees with them or not I feel there has been a purposely trashing of the party over the last few weeks by the media and others.All negative reporting to tear down and discredit .Then all over the news the last few days is uplifting and positive coverage of a Penticton Liberal candidate race to choose that riding candidate .I haven't heard one peep out of the media ,about the Conservatives selecting this Scott S above,as the Conservative riding candidate.It's all negative about them.Perhaps Nab the Conservatives appear to be all unknowns ,misfits and no-names because the Liberal biased media keeps it that way.Just a thought.

Perhaps it is due to the party truly being a bunch of misfits and BC Liberal hoping to re-brand. Maybe I don't give the people of BC enough credit and maybe, just maybe, they see this as the 3rd coming of the Social Credit party?

They very well might be a bunch of misfits ,no-names or losers, or not.The thing is the recent trashing of the Conservatives seems to me, to be way more,intense and purposeful by the media than it has been for a long time.IMO it is the media along with the Liberals who are steering public opinion of the Conservatives, in attempts to take the Conservatives out of the running,and as you put it, for the 3rd coming of the Social Credit Party .

“If I were to remain silent, I’d be guilty of complicity.”― Albert Einstein__________________________Christy Clark needs to be deleted from the Premiers office.

maple leaf wrote:They very well might be a bunch of misfits ,no-names or losers, or not.The thing is the recent trashing of the Conservatives seems to me, to be way more,intense and purposeful by the media than it has been for a long time.IMO it is the media along with the Liberals who are steering public opinion of the Conservatives, in attempts to take the Conservatives out of the running,and as you put it, for the 3rd coming of the Social Credit Party .

I am sure it is just a large political conspiracy and has nothing to do with their wacky behaviour and inability to control themselves from within, right?

Man can now fly in the air like a bird, swim under the ocean like a fish, he can burrow into the ground like a mole. Now if only he could walk the earth like a man, this would be paradise.Tommy Douglas

It has to do with 15 people, some of whom may have had grievances, and many of whom are openly working with the Liberals. A few people can make a lot of noise, and this was carefully orchestrated to make the maximum amount of noise. I don't blame the media for reporting it - that's their job. It's unfortunate that they didn't investigate a little deeper before they did, but they at least belatedly caught on. The same people are still releasing PRs and trying to keep up the racket, but to its credit the media is ignoring them because by now it's quite obvious to everyone in the media what is actually going on. Unfortunately very few in the media have seen fit to point to their own mistakes.

Consider this: Adrian Dix won his leadership with 52% after three runoffs. Clark won hers with 52% after three runoffs too. That means that on both first ballots, those leaders received a small minority of the vote. Cummins won on the first ballot after one vote by a margin of 71%. That result was achieved through the same democratic process the other parties used, not by some "authoritarian" diktat that some hint at.

And it's common currency to call the 29% who voted for a leadership review a "revolt," yet completely ignore the majority who voted against both Dix and Clark on their first votes. To top it off, Alvis and like-minded folks have no problem claiming we "can't control" ourselves, while others call John Cummins an autocrat when the board (not John) expelled two of the clearly Liberal-affiliated ringleaders - well after the majority of members had clearly and unequivocally rejected their agenda.

There is no "revolt." There never was. Even the media understands that now. John is one of the nicest people you'll ever meet, and one of the few politicians with a very high standard of integrity. It's a shame the Liberals saw fit to try to drag his name through the dirt like this in the name of political expediency.

In any event, we're far from finished. The Liberals are in a death spiral and we're just getting started!

*removed/this posting style is more suited to the Political Arena, not here/Jo*

Man can now fly in the air like a bird, swim under the ocean like a fish, he can burrow into the ground like a mole. Now if only he could walk the earth like a man, this would be paradise.Tommy Douglas

ScottSA wrote:Consider this: Adrian Dix won his leadership with 52% after three runoffs. Clark won hers with 52% after three runoffs too. That means that on both first ballots, those leaders received a small minority of the vote. Cummins won on the first ballot after one vote by a margin of 71%.

Just curious ,who or what other candidates was Cummins up against,during the vote to which you speak.

“If I were to remain silent, I’d be guilty of complicity.”― Albert Einstein__________________________Christy Clark needs to be deleted from the Premiers office.

ScottSA wrote:Consider this: Adrian Dix won his leadership with 52% after three runoffs. Clark won hers with 52% after three runoffs too. That means that on both first ballots, those leaders received a small minority of the vote. Cummins won on the first ballot after one vote by a margin of 71%.

Just curious ,who or what other candidates was Cummins up against,during the vote to which you speak.

The vote was to affirm his leadership. The individual waiting in the wings and stirring the pot was Van Dongen however, who had previously attempted to have the Conservatives join the Liberals. Since several of his 15 supporters have since joined the Liberals or have been shown to be connected to them, I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions as to what was behind the so-called "revolt."

ScottSA wrote:Consider this: Adrian Dix won his leadership with 52% after three runoffs. Clark won hers with 52% after three runoffs too. That means that on both first ballots, those leaders received a small minority of the vote. Cummins won on the first ballot after one vote by a margin of 71%. That result was achieved through the same democratic process the other parties used, not by some "authoritarian" diktat that some hint at.

ScottSA wrote:The vote was to affirm his leadership. The individual waiting in the wings and stirring the pot was Van Dongen however, who had previously attempted to have the Conservatives join the Liberals. Since several of his 15 supporters have since joined the Liberals or have been shown to be connected to them, I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions as to what was behind the so-called "revolt."

So you are comparing apple to oranges with your comparison.The Liberals and NDP were in a vote against several other people to see who will be leader,some, with just as much chance of becoming leaders ,while Cummins was being judged against himself.The vote wasn't deciding who will be leader of the Conservative party. Totally different than a leadership race .The vote was to find out if members agreed with Cummins as leader,it wasn't a race between Cummins and VanDongen .So if the Liberals or the NDP held a vote similar to what the Conservative had with Cummins,there would be a quite different percentage than 52% .Just another miss leading statement to make Cummins look better than he is.I do agree with you,that the Liberals were behind trying to stir the pot in order to discredit the Conservative party.And the MSM played right into it.I've been saying that all along.

“If I were to remain silent, I’d be guilty of complicity.”― Albert Einstein__________________________Christy Clark needs to be deleted from the Premiers office.

ScottSA wrote:Consider this: Adrian Dix won his leadership with 52% after three runoffs. Clark won hers with 52% after three runoffs too. That means that on both first ballots, those leaders received a small minority of the vote. Cummins won on the first ballot after one vote by a margin of 71%. That result was achieved through the same democratic process the other parties used, not by some "authoritarian" diktat that some hint at.

ScottSA wrote:The vote was to affirm his leadership. The individual waiting in the wings and stirring the pot was Van Dongen however, who had previously attempted to have the Conservatives join the Liberals. Since several of his 15 supporters have since joined the Liberals or have been shown to be connected to them, I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions as to what was behind the so-called "revolt."

So you are comparing apple to oranges with your comparison.The Liberals and NDP were in a vote against several other people to see who will be leader,some, with just as much chance of becoming leaders ,while Cummins was being judged against himself.The vote wasn't deciding who will be leader of the Conservative party. Totally different than a leadership race .The vote was to find out if members agreed with Cummins as leader,it wasn't a race between Cummins and VanDongen .So if the Liberals or the NDP held a vote similar to what the Conservative had with Cummins,there would be a quite different percentage than 52% .Just another miss leading statement to make Cummins look better than he is.I do agree with you,that the Liberals were behind trying to stir the pot in order to discredit the Conservative party.And the MSM played right into it.I've been saying that all along.

No, I don't think it's misleading at all. It was widely understood within the party that Van Dongen was the alternative. That's why he quit when the vote was so overwhelmingly against him.